We can respond to that.
We advocated for an inspector general when we were looking at what we felt were moneys in the long-term care facilities that were being misused. We advocated for an inspector general who would have the authority to go in and examine the fiscal books to ensure that the moneys Veterans Affairs Canada was giving to these major centres was in fact being allocated to the veterans and not to a community body.
I wouldn't see the role of an ombudsman being the same, particularly whether he would have that authority if somebody brought it to his attention that they thought there was fiscal abuse going on. They could bring that to his attention and prepare the case in front of him, and if he so agreed, then at that time he could order a forensic audit if necessary.
So there is a difference. I think what you have to be sure of with the ombudsman—and I agree with what your colleague has just said—is protecting the interests of the citizen and the veteran. That is his primary responsibility, but he has to be given the authority to open every door necessary in order to reveal the facts he's looking for.